<p>No, I already told you my justification for racial preferences. Why do you always do this? People state something and then you feel the need to correct their statement and give “what they really meant”? Or “this is question you’re really asking” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Find anywhere on this thread where someone said that, I never said that! Are you assuming that race-blind admissions are not necessary because URM’s have the same opportunities as everyone else? Now that is the question we should be debating!</p>
<p>No, Bovertine is asking for any research in addition to what has been discussed before. At the risk of placing words in his mouth, he does not want more quotations from the research of Espenshade and Chung, or more quotations from the books of Karabel or Golden. </p>
<p>This is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. Espenshade has admitted that nothing in his work demonstrates … discrimination. Golden’s book relied on faulty and incomplete “research,” hearsay, and selected anecdotes. The Chosen has been sufficiently dissected on CC to permit anyone to either agree or disagree about the validity of the parallels between antisemitic policies of a century ago and the “case” for Asian discrimination in the past twenty years. </p>
<p>Since this issue has been labeled as beyond “debate” I think it is fair to ask what facts or evidence might exist in additional research. This is especially relevant since none of the “challengers” seems to be able to point to the parts of the previously mentioned studies that establish discrimination, and that most “opponents” could easily point to the sloppiness and misrepresentation in works such as Golden’s. </p>
<p>In so many words, there is no need to bring up more of the same old! There is no need to say “Check E and C or Golden or Karabel’s account of what happened at HYP in the 1920s.” We have and that “data” does not cut it, and neither do all the faulty interpretations presented so far. </p>
<p>Unless, unless, the arguments are confined to two simplistic positions, namely that the issue is ALL about removing racial preferences that boost the chances of minorities in an admission process that relies mostly on standardized scores, and that it is accepted that Asian students are not only more qualified than all other categories but have also sufficient numbers of high scorers to fill all the “claimed slots.”</p>
<p>At the end of this twisted road, it is clear that the OBJECTIVE is not to debate social justice and principles, but to simply complain that blacks and hispanics are seemingly able to continue grabbing some of the spots denied to Asians. Along the way, we are supposed to consider the type of statistics of the UC system as the “best” and fairest system, and that Asian representation at all elite schools should be closer to 50 percent than to the current percentages!</p>
<p>Your comparison doesn’t take into account the changing selectivity of those schools as well as schools nationwide between 1994 and 2009.</p>
<p>siserune had a good post pages back showing that the ratio of the Asian to white acceptance rate at Berkeley has an “erratic but increasing trend” from Fall 1998 to Fall 2009. But the ratio did not change between Fall 1997 and Fall 1998, and siserune plausibly suggests that the trend is due to demographic changes.</p>
<p>That is indeed the key question. URMs do NOT have the same opportunity as everyone else. So what can we do to give URMs the same opportunity? How about raising taxes a bit on the upper income groups (regardless of race) and using it to fund education for URMs? I personally think, however, that while it will make some difference, it will not make a whole lot of difference.</p>
<p>Why do you think Asians have superlative stats? Is it because Asians are more wealthy, have better opportunities, or are innately more talented? The answer would be no in all the cases. Pound for pound, an Asian and a non-Asian kid growing up in the exact same socioeconomic setting will end up in two very different places with respect to academic performance.</p>
<p>So what is the difference? It’s the tiger moms (and dads, lest we forget). This gap cannot be closed through investment in education. So what do colleges do? They simply put in a quota.</p>
<p>I always try to expect and pre-empt one argument. In our case, you were fearmongering about an “underclass of citizens.” I pointed out that while Dale and Krueger did find that poor or “URM” students got more out of their elite educations than did non-poor, non-“URM” students, I wasn’t sure if that was why we should have the policy.</p>
<p>But the big point here is that you apparently believe Asians are a vile and bitter group out to screw "URM"s: Still don’t understand why the Asian’s have such a problem with them and feel it is OK to systematically produce an underclass of citizens. I get the feeling that the mentality is “anything to get ahead”. What makes you feel that way?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I already did, and I quoted it earlier: Nothing would change for the Asian’s and whites [if racial classification were not considered] except for a slight increase in numbers due to shortchanging the URM’s. Come on.</p>
<p>Would Asian kids be stealing spots from URMs if there was no racial quota? If you answer yes, I would answer yes to your question. If you answer no, I will follow suit.</p>
<p>There is only a certain amount of research on this topic, which is well accepted by social scientists. If the “people” have gone against the collective judgment of the social scientists, indeed I have no other research to show. Just as I wouldn’t have any additional research to prove that Evolution is real, beyond Darwin’s work. Nor would I think that it would be necessary.</p>
limabeans:
I’m trying to understand your numbers. At most of the UCs the admit rates for ‘any’ ethnic group have gone down since they’re getting more and more selective (significantly in the last 17 years) so comparing admit rates for a particular group pre-209 to now doesn’t really mean anything regarding the subject. The important metric would be the actual ethnic breakdown of the students pre-209 and now. Another factor in the equation would be the number of applicants of each race versus other races since that can skew the results and analysis (i.e. if twice as many Asians applied than before but only half as many whites did then obviously the numbers of Asians would be expected to increase even when ignoring race).</p>
<p>Spot checking the numbers you posted the actual percentage of Asians on UCLA’s campus now and in 2009 is much higher than 24% (closer to 33-39% depending on the year).</p>
<p>Am I mis-understanding your numbers?</p>
<p>I’m fairly certain that the ethnic percentages changed significantly pre-209 vs post-209 since I’ve checked on it in the past but I don’t have the numbers in front of me now. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that both the pro and con racial discrimination people generally believe it makes a difference in the numbers or else they wouldn’t have their stance and wouldn’t be advocating the discrimination or not. I don’t think there are many people who believe it makes no difference in the numbers.</p>
<p>Edit - Looks like I cross-posted with Fabrizio</p>
As I said, I’m not looking to argue, I’m looking to read the information.</p>
<p>You claimed you preferred to rely on peer reviewed academic studies. That’s what I’m asking to see. You claim “unanimity” by social scientists. I don’t think a handful of peer reviewed studies is too much to ask to prove “unanimity” among social scientists on the topic. But if the studies don’t exist, they don’t exist.</p>
<p>Although I have no real interest in doing so, I’m pretty certain I could locate four or five studies concurring with Darwin, whether you consider them necessary or not.</p>
<p>This is why it is not that hard to place ALL the research that demonstrates discrimination against Asians on one pile. That pile, unfortunately, shines by its … absence. There is no data that shows discrimination against Asians. All there is a hodgepodge of anecdotes and dubious methologies that rely on circumstantial evidence and ill-defined criteria.</p>
<p>I’m fairly certain that the ethnic percentages changed significantly pre-209 vs post-209 since I’ve checked on it in the past but I don’t have the numbers in front of me now. </p>
<p>Our good friend Bluebayou loves to amend posts by writing … let me correct that for you. So here we go:</p>
<p>Why do you think SOME Asians have superlative stats? Is it because Asians are more wealthy, have better opportunities, or are innately more talented? The answer would be no in all the cases. </p>
<p>When it suits them, people have complained about the use of the terms Asians to reflect a monolithic bloc of students. Does it make any difference that the superlative stats ascribed to Asians are the result of combining national and international scores? Does it make a differences that there exist more than subtle differences between verbal and math scores? Does it make any difference that the standardized scores of “Asians” are bimodal in their distribution. Does it make a difference that the absolute number of Asians with superlative stats is not as large as some of the discussions here do intimate. </p>
<p>To keep things simple, we do know that there are many more high composite scoring Asians than there are Latinos and Blacks, but also that there are substantially fewer than there are White students. The differences are even less subtle when considering the verbal scores that are more heavily weighted at highy selective colleges.</p>
<p>“leave spots open”? Did my (white) kids “steal” a spot from you?
Would Asian kids be stealing spots from URMs if there was no racial quota? If you answer yes, I would answer yes to your question. If you answer no, I will follow suit."</p>
<p>Of course not. No one can “steal” a spot from anyone else, as no one is entitled. </p>
<p>It doesn’t escape me, though, that the complaining CC threads are always about the 2100 URM one town over – not the 2200 white lacrosse playing prep school kid. There is a disproportionate amount of angst towards the URMs who are perceived as “stealing” spots.</p>